This does not mean that the electron can not be pushed to lower orbits- closer to the nucleus, but this requires energy, it is endothermic.

So you're saying that when an excited electron falls to the "base" state it gives up energy (a photon), but if it were to fall to an even lower (fractional) state that it would absorb energy? That doesn't sound right. I think what Dr. Mills claims is that although electrons at the base state can't give up a quantum of energy in the normal manner, his reactor causes the electron to drop a couple of levels by a different mechanism. When the electron does go to the lower level, it gives off a lot of energy. My summary could be wrong; I'm not a chemist....

you are stuck thinking linearly. The potential energy- kinetic energy relationship can be presented in many ways. The base though is that there is some minimal potential energy linked to some maximal kinetic energy or visa versa. If you drop a rock off a cliff it will convert its potential energy into kinetic energy and smack the ground with a certain force. If you climb a ladder on top of the cliff and then drop the rock it will have more kinetic energy and smak the ground harder, but you added the same potential energy difference as you climbed the ladder. The system under test has to be considered.The so called ground state is the lowest potential energy in the system. As applied to a rock you can keep it simple as above, or you can delve deeply into the history of the universe- Big Bang, expansion, fusion, nucleosynthesis, radioactive half life, etc. The final results are much more complex but still the same. T%here is conservation of energy in the universe.

The ground state in an electron orbit around a nucleus is measured by looking at the energy input and extraction from the system- atom. This energy change results in hugely studied spectra. If the electron/ atom energy state -potential energy increases, it absorbs light- a dark spectral line. If the atom releases energy (potential energy-drops) a bright spectral line is emitted. The energy leaves the atom system into the larger room system via light emmision. That these absorptions and emmisions occur at dicreet energy levels is part of the foundation of quantum physics and it's description is what earned Einstein his Nobel Prize. The important point is that these energies are measured to very fine detail.

With current understanding there MUST be a spectral line emmision if energy is released. No where have I seen any indication of this with BLP.

There are all sorts of confounding spectral line considerations. Chemical bonds, and free electrons, etc. can release or absorb energy through various mechanisms. I am not sure all of these are discrete quanta, though I suspect the vast majority are. There is also much overlap in some wavelengths- for example, molecular bonds have energy changes that emmit or absorb in the infrared region. This is extremely complex, but still there is a huge amount of data available, even to the extent of widespread usage in chemical determinations of compounds by studing their spectal emmisions or absorption. At the BLP claimed energy levels the single electron changing it's orbit would need to release a huge amount of energy. If one photon then it would be well into the ultraviolet range or shorter. Either that of a bunch of photons would have to be released at once. This would result in a higher intensity light emmision- it is brighter, again no hiding the emmision irregardless if it is a single quanta as is implied by quantum physics, or if it is an analog emmision (like black body radiation). Either should be easily measurable with high precision.

So there are two elements to my disdain. One is the energy balance in the system. Like with Rossi, the claimed energy change is stupendous. Such changes have to have a corresponding stupendous energy release (or absorption). Such changes have to be very easy to measure conclusively, even with sloppy technique. There is no wiggle room. Contrast this with typical LENR claims or the current interest in the reactionless rocket engine. The magnitude of the claimed changes is so small that experimental setup and reasonable error margins can hide the results.Secondly, the ground state is not some arbitrarily assigned value, It is experimentally determined to high precision and has supporting theory, Such as the Pauly Exclusion Principle.

And finally, if this reaction exists as described, why is it not seen in that great laboratory known as nature (or the universe as we know it)!

Dr. Tibbets, thank you for your response. As I say, I am not a chemist or anything like, so I wouldn't dream of arguing your analysis. I do know that Dr. Mills' theories reject much of QM in favor of classical physics, so your QM oriented analysis is rather beside the point (of the topic). Still, with respect to your remarks I should mention that BrLP claims that the large quantities of energy released are almost entirely in the UV and hard UV part of the spectrum. There are numerous research papers covering theory and detailed experimental results, as well as slide presentations and videos for a more general audience, all openly published on the BrLP website. There are also a number of validation reports by outside scientists who were allowed to study the setup of laboratory experiments and observe the experiments personally.Considering the huge body of research confirming QM, it is highly possible that Dr. Mills' theory is nonsense, or anyway incorrect. That wouldn't rule out the possibility that he has observed a previously unknown and improbable phenomenon (superconduction, anyone?) and found means to control it, regardless of the underlying theory. I would settle for that.

My arguement may use quantum mechanics precepts, but even classically, similar arguments apply. We live in a world where certain materials are not at the lowest energy state they can achieve. Things like coal, oil, uranium, etc. can all be coaxed to yield useful energy by forcing or allowing their natural decay (chemically more oxidized compounds, radioactively by climbing of falling along the nuclear binding energy relationship. What is important is that these systems are ready made for us by nature. Eventually even protons may decay to lower energy states, but if true it is irrelevant for us. It is accepted that the electron lowest energy orbitals are well defined. Quantum machanics is not needed for this appreciation. It does allow for more percise understanding but for this discussion it does not have to be invoked, except for understanding the positions and existance of narrow spectral lines. Black body radiation is more classically described. Still there is a ground state where a substance cool down to and emit energy. But below that temperature it would require energy to cool it further. This point is the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. That some lower obtainable electron orbital energy may exist is no the problem. The issue is proving it. Current understanding of the universe , both classical and quantum mechanics do not.

As I have pointed out the magnitude of the claimed, energy release is not subtle. It should be very easy to demonstrate in a lab or in nature even to a rightly skeptical audience.

nferguso wrote:That wouldn't rule out the possibility that he has observed a previously unknown and improbable phenomenon (superconduction, anyone?) and found means to control it, regardless of the underlying theory. I would settle for that.

Well, in the last 20 years:1) He claimed availability and license for miraculous chemical compounds based on Hydrino theory. But never supplied.2) He claimed availability of a (very expensive) software to actually calculate those new chemical reactions. But never supplied.3) He claimed for 5 times to have discovered and engineered 5 different Hydrino based energy technologies that was ready and mature for market, with bogus (and payed) validations from money hungry universities. But never supplied.4) He claimed to be open for external validation from willing investors and willing to supply prototypes samples. But never supplied.

I doubt he has anything to offer at all. Just another hungry scammer looking for more gullible investors.

As always they are only good showing words.Let's see the hardware and the specifications before, than it will be worth to listen to their words.Somehow I feel that after they collected even more money a last minute issue will "force them" to postpone the hardware release.....

Giorgio,As always you are only good at giving uninformed opinions.BLP have published quite detailed specs and photos of the hardware.

edit added.I had reason to visit my post of Nov 08, 2016 8:24 am on page 35. It is painfully obvious that Giorgio never bothered to look at the videos and a month later we have six pages of drivel since. Talk about pathetic.

That's a little ironic Parallel given the 5 plus years of drivel we've had out of you, where you haven't actually read the links that you have posted.You have become the King of Drive-By Cherry Pick Jack-asses.Well done!

Now, could you please try to answer something, anything, we have asked you? Some substance would be useful.

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Unfortunately what I've been seeing from BLP is decidedly iffy. All theory aside, what I saw on one of their early demo videos was a bank of LED lights hooked up to a bank of solar cells, 'reacting' to them dropping their 'hydrino' powder in granular form between two rotating electrodes hooked up to a high-amp power supply.

So the 'hydrino' stuff causes an arc between the electrodes, light from said arc is captured by solar cells and sent to the LED panel. The LEDs, due to their very fast rise/fall time when hit with a pulse of electricity, light very quickly and it's very impressive. Oooo, blinky lights!

However, the time needed to light a standard incandescent light bulb means that it'd be much less impressive using those. And I'm thinking that their demo of 'power' would fail with those.

Basically what I saw was an intermittently fed rejiggered carbon-arc projector, the kind that used to be used in movie theaters before the advent of xenon bulbs. The granular 'hydrino' stuff shorts between the electrodes and flashes.

When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

You should look at the recent videos linked on page 35.What BLP says is that they expect to have a crude working model that operates continuously in a couple of months. They have already demonstrated a self sustaining continuous plasma that is a first. If nothing happens for say seven months, you might start to get doubtful. Their forecast for a commercial model is for the end of 2017As I said earlier, they are working with very high temperatures so I expect their schedule is optimistic.

parallel wrote:If nothing happens for say seven months, you might start to get doubtful. Their forecast for a commercial model is for the end of 2017As I said earlier, they are working with very high temperatures so I expect their schedule is optimistic.

You are the dream customer of every scammer and snake oil salesman of the world!

We need a Mills vs Rossi thread. To debate who has the better technique in making money from vaporware. It's is close, but I still think Rossi has more style, or at least much higher entertainment value.